What a freakin joke. This is the most most obvious self serving lie I have ever heard from the MSM and there have been thousands of them over the last few years. For an employee of the Washington Post to actually write that shows they have total contempt for the intelligence of their readers.

Fear not: WaPo claims “If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed.”

I’m sure they already have a 21st century Woodward/Bernstein duo leaving no stone unturned in pursuit of the truth. Indeed, this scandal could go to the very top: don’t you think WaPo would be proud to have contributed to the downfall of 2 presidents in less than 40 years?

...read the comments below the WaPo article....most of them sound like Freepers writing in...things are changing in this country...whites are no longer afraid to criticize officials for overlooking bad black behavior...Obama will be remembered as the president whose behavior set guilt ridden whites free.

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

"The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009."

The idea of the WaPo leaving a back door open and some derelict wandering in and using a computer keyboard PROBABLY isn’t all that far-fetched.... And they wonder why Foxnews has so many viewers while their readership is WAY down-!

17
posted on 07/17/2010 3:57:35 PM PDT
by imjimbo
(The constitution SHOULD be our "gun permit")

In spite of what appears to be an even-handed, calm review of the Black Panther issue, here, it appears even more to be a wait-and-see effort that hopes to find some “right-wing” evidence sufficient to water down or neutralize the fundamental activity of the Black Panthers and thus make the absence of reporting somehow valid.

It doesn’t matter who is pushing this story. What matters is what we can see and hear on the video at the polling place. That alone is worthy of reporting. If the DOJ has also encouraged repression of black intimidation, that is yet another story that should be investigated.

The sad thing is that the Post and other outlets are overly choosy about what they define as “partisan.” Those pursuing a left-wing agenda seem never to be partisan for some strange reason.

The term is reserved for anything other than the Post’s or the administration’s agenda. The same is true for the terms “controversial.” Are there no controversial Democrats — like Gore and a host of others? And how often, if ever, is some Democrat described as “left-wing”?

The Post’s starting point is far different from mainstream America’s. Perhaps that is why the Post can no longer afford sufficient staffing. It claims it can’t pursue legitimate stories because of “limited staffing.” Plenty of “staffing” for stories besmirching or challenging the right, but too few reporters for stories that might be less than complimentary about the left?

There is always plenty of staffing for nonsensical claims, such as in Florida in 2000 (”I saw a big dog a block away from the poll,” and “There was a police car cruising down the street when I went to vote”)which, by the way, resulted in the Civil Rights Commission holding hearings in FL that resulted in —nothing.

Plenty of print space for fraudulent claims that even on the surface are laughable, but ACTUAL evidence of intimidation on tape? No, no. Can’t waste resources on that.

The WAPO would never even suggest a DOJ whistleblower was a liberal activist even if that person had not testified under oath. There are two other affidavits too which reinforce what Adams said. Holder is not allowing others to testify.

Floating the idea Adams is motivated by partisanship is evil. It implies truth does not exist.

The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.

But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide.

I like how this guy casts the story as a "controversy" and says it screams for clarity, as though it's just been a factless melee so far. Here is the MSM's definition of controversy: any story that is first covered outside the mainstream media. It is not a settled story until the MSM has brought its unbiased professional reportage to bear on it.

"Bringing clarity" to this story will really mean something like tamping it down. After all, the Post doesn't like this story, since it threatens their man Holder. If it had been a story that the Post had liked, then its mission wouldn't have been bringing clarity, but rather bringing it to the public's attention, because of its great import and urgency, of course. And this would have meant getting out of the starting blocks early, revealing the facts as they were dug up, likely before all the facts were in.

But here the Post has decided that its role is to bring clarity, which means sitting back and waiting (and hoping the story fizzles on its own) till the last minute to give a balanced wrap-up, putting the story peacefully to bed -- unless of course the Post finds some dirt on the civil rights council or Christian, in which case it will need to Brought To The Public's Attention!.

“Alexander, the Post ombudsman, is not an employee of the Post nor is he paid by the Post.”

You mean he is stupid enough to write these obvious lies and not even get paid for it. I want to meet this clown. I’m sure if he is that naive and/or stupid I’ve got some organizations he can make donations to.

The ombudsman - Alexander - in this case has done a pretty good job putting the feet to the fire of the Post about its blatant support for Obama and its liberal bias. He didn't see the point in one case. Is that enough to heap scorn on him? No. Should the Post have covered this earlier, but chose not to? Yes. It's the editors’ fault, not Alexander's, that they didn't cover this.

“The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.”

“The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology”

These two statements were pretty much deserving of scorn. He accepted the explanation and did not challenge the editor. He did not acknowledge that all the Washington Post coverage decisions are based on ideology.

The last thing I want to do is get Jim Robinson in trouble. I tried to be circumspect in posting this. I suppose it falls under the heading of an opinion piece, but FR was sued by the Wapo/ LA Times group for allowing complete articles to be posted, and are under edict to permit only “edited” submissions. The posting system even warns you about Washington Post submissions. I chose a cautious approach, with the suggestion that readers go and taste the swill for themselves...

38
posted on 07/17/2010 9:17:07 PM PDT
by jonascord
(We've got the Constitution to protect us. Why should we worry?)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.